ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A,CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 12.12.2022 Reserved on : 30.01.2026 Date of decision : 12.02.2026 Gobindpreet Singh son of late Sh. Balwant Singh, resident of House No.63, village Adalpur, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

…..Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 3^rd Floor, Satnam Complex, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Branch Manager.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 3^rd Floor, Satnam Complex, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City through Motor Claims Manager.

….Respondents/Opposite parties First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar in CC/265/2022 Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-

For the appellant : Sh. R.C. Gupta, Advocate For respondents : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant to modify or amend the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was partly allowed while granting the following relief:-

“11. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.4,05,593.11 i.e. the amount assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses………”

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal, as set out in the complaint, are that the father of the complainant; namely, Balwant Singh got insured his ‘Bolero Camper Car’ bearing No.PB-08-C-3726, 2014 model, with OPs vide cover note No.DY 1302683993 for the IDV of Rs.6 lakhs valid from 28.02.2016 to 27.02.2017. Unfortunately, on 13.5.2016, the vehicle in question, being driven by said Balwant Singh, met with an accident at Shahkot Jalandhar Road, when an army vehicle hit against the insured vehicle. The father of the complainant, who was driving the insured vehicle died in the said accident and the vehicle was also damaged badly. The claim for damaged vehicle was reported with the OPs immediately after the accident and Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the OPs to assess the loss. The surveyor assured the complainant that since the vehicle was a total loss, the entire IDV would be paid to him in due course. The complainant requested the surveyor as well as the OPs to provide him complete copy of insurance policy along with its terms and conditions, but the same were never supplied to him. The complainant was pursuing his case with the OPs from time to time by visiting their office and requested them to settle the claim. However, the complainant was surprised to receive letter dated 26.08.2016 from the OPs, whereby they rejected the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds, which are not tenable in the eyes of law. The complainant further alleged that since his father being driver cum owner of the insured vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license, he was also entitled for compulsory Accident cover amounting to Rs.2 lakh but nothing transpired. Alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant, being the only LR of the Balwant Singh, filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OPs to pay Rs.6 lacs i.e. IDV